SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

Section 127 1-6 1 S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 7-21 2 A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221 22-32 Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 3 (2013) 12 SCC 649 Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 33-35 4 36-44 5 Union of India

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

Section 127 1-6 1 S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 7-21 2 A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221 22-32 Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy 3 (2013) 12 SCC 649 Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 33-35 4 36-44 5 Union of India

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

1) arises as a\nconsequence of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3)\nof section 92CA; and\n(ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company:\n11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions of Section\n144C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer must forward a draft

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing genuine and bonafide reasons. The Tribunal noted that the AO initiated proceedings against a non-existent entity, which is illegal. Furthermore, the AO passed the order under Section 201/201(1A) without issuing notices to employees and without proper jurisdiction, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted the pendency

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condone\nthe delay of 108 days in filing the appeal before us but with a cost of Rs.\n5,000/- to be deposited into the Prime Minister Relief Fund to be\ndeposited by the assessee when the assessee apply for the appeal effect of\nthis order.\n\n4.\nBrief facts of the Case are that the assessee had filed

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR DUSAD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that\nrevenue stands dismissed

delay of one\nday. Considering that aspect of the matter the bench condone the\ndelay one day.\n3. The Grounds of appeal raised in the cross appeal of the\nRevenue and assessee are as under:-\nITA No.1149/JP/2024 – A.Y. 2017-18 (Revenue)\n“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id.\nCIT(A) has erred

PRADEEP KUMAR DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that\nrevenue stands dismissed

delay of one\nday. Considering that aspect of the matter the bench condone the\ndelay one day.\n3. The Grounds of appeal raised in the cross appeal of the\nRevenue and assessee are as under:-\nITA No.1149/JP/2024 – A.Y. 2017-18 (Revenue)\n“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id.\nCIT(A) has erred

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. ASHOK PARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 53/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-04, Jaipur बनाम Vs. Ashok Parwal M-57, Mahesh Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ACJPO7256L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Vedant Agarwal, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Ajey Malik, CIT (th. V.C.) सुनवाई क

153C is to be resorted to without giving any finding that issuance of notice under section 148 was incorrect. Thus, the CIT (A) is not justified in quashing notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. (iii) Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in overturning the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay which is against the principles of natural justice and also submitted that the AO had passed ex-parte orders [i.e. u/s 144 read with Section 153C and other u/s 144 r.w.s. 153B(1

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA , KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay which is against the principles of natural justice and also submitted that the AO had passed ex-parte orders [i.e. u/s 144 read with Section 153C and other u/s 144 r.w.s. 153B(1

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

1. That in the aforesaid matter, the Id. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur passed the Order u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) on dated 06.02.2024 (hereinafter referred as "impugned order") and the same was received on mail on dated 28.02.2024, Accordingly, the appeal was to be filed on/before dt. 28.04.2024 however, the same has been filed on dated 10.04.2024. Thus, the appeal

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

1. That in the aforesaid matter, the Id. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur passed the\nOrder u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) on dated 06.02.2024 (hereinafter referred\nas \"impugned order\") and the same was received on mail on dated\n28.02.2024, Accordingly, the appeal was to be filed on/before dt.\n28.04.2024 however, the same has been filed on dated 10.04.2024.\nThus, the appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS LLP, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay of 12 days has merits as assessee was prevented with sufficient cause while filling the cross objection. ITA No. 239/JP/2024 and CO/4/JPR/2024 for A.Y 2013-14 12. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that a search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") was carried

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay of 12 days has merits as assessee was prevented with sufficient cause while filling the cross objection. ITA No. 239/JP/2024 and CO/4/JPR/2024 for A.Y 2013-14 12. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that a search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") was carried

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay of 12 days has merits as assessee was prevented with sufficient cause while filling the cross objection. ITA No. 239/JP/2024 and CO/4/JPR/2024 for A.Y 2013-14 12. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that a search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") was carried

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

section 144B of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by the Assessment Unit, Income\nTax Department.\n\n2. Since the issue is involved in the Revenue's appeal and cross\nobjection of the assessee are interconnected, we dispose of this by this\nconsolidated order.\n\n3. Revenue has preferred appeal on the following grounds: -\n\n“1. Whether

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

condone the delay in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee company has submitted an application praying for raising the following additional ground of appeal which reads as under:- “That

SHUBHAM JAIN,TONK, RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - TONK, MAHA DEVALI, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee is an individual and filed his return for AY 2015-16 u/s 139 on 01.02.2017 disclosing an income of Rs.2,65,530/-. A search & seizure operation under section 132(1